Over the past several years, as Chairman and then Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I made several trips to our southern and northern borders. I also traveled to Mexico and the countries of the Northern Triangle of Central America — Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — to better understand the violence, lack of economic opportunity and lack of rule of law that are the root causes of Central American migration to the U.S. southern border.

On each trip to our southern border with Mexico, I had the opportunity to hear from Department of Homeland Security officials on the ground and learn how Congress can do its part to help our Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol agents achieve their mission. Again and again, these agents tell me that technology is the key to securing our border.

My conversations with the people on the ground helped me recognize that we must prioritize the acquisition of advanced cameras, sensors and radars so our agents have real time situational awareness along the border. Underground sensors and night vision equipment have also proven enormously effective at detecting unauthorized entries.

We can send more technology to the border at a lower cost to the taxpayer by working with the Department of Defense to reuse equipment that is no longer needed by our troops in places like Afghanistan. For example, right now, we’re reusing blimps called aerostats in the Rio Grande Valley that are equipped with surveillance technology that can track people attempting to enter our country unlawfully. CBP has also been using P-3 aircraft, like the ones I flew during the Vietnam War, to detect the movement of illicit goods.

We must also take stock of the assets we are already using at the border to ensure the equipment we’re deploying is actually up to the task. If we have a plane, helicopter or drone in the sky, we need to make sure it has the right cameras and radars so our agents are not flying blind.

These technologies are smart, proven investments that help border agents perform their mission and get better results along our borders. They cost a lot less than building a wall — and unlike the wall, we know they are effective. I call them “force multipliers.” In some sections of the border, the best force multipliers may be advanced radar systems on drones. In others, the best force multipliers may be horses that agents can rely upon to quickly trek through steep and remote terrain, unsuitable for vehicles.

But President Trump wants Congress to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to build his wall and fulfill an outrageous campaign promise. The president has long waxed poetic about building a wall along our border with Mexico — and promised us that Mexico will pay for it. But the truth is, Mexico won’t pay a penny. Even Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has admitted that. So President Trump is saddling us with an exorbitantly expensive structure that serves as a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that has many, many shapes and sizes. Americans are smarter than that.

Worse yet, to pay for his wall, the Trump administration wants to gut the budgets of two agencies on the front lines of the effort to protect our homeland and keep Americans safe, hacking 14 percent from the Coast Guard’s budget and 11 percent from the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget.

That just doesn’t make any sense. The Coast Guard provides helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and fast boats for our southern border that are vital to interdicting drugs headed for our communities. And TSA deploys teams of agents to patrol our airports and mass transit hubs for suspicious activity, looking to prevent attacks like the one we saw in Brussels. If President Trump thinks he can better secure our land, air and sea borders by cutting funds to the Coast Guard and TSA, he’s got another thing coming.

What’s more, it’s not clear how much this wall will actually cost. An internal DHS report has estimated that completing a wall along our southern border will cost about $21 billion, and an independent firm put the cost at close to $25 billion. That estimate only takes into account the cost of materials to build the wall — not, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the cost of acquiring the land on which the wall would be built — or litigation against landowners who don’t want to hand over their land to the federal government. These estimates also don’t account for the operations and maintenance costs of a wall, which would number in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

We already have 650 miles of fencing along our southern border with Mexico in the areas where it makes the most sense. Interestingly, in a recent report by the GAO on the effectiveness of fencing along the U.S. border, the agency could not determine the wall’s real security benefit. Border agents told GAO that migrants have cut through fencing using bolts or pipe cutters, some using power tools. Some migrants have burrowed under the fence. Others have used a ramp to drive over the fencing. And some migrants simply jump over the fence. Regardless of whether the migrants have gone through, under, around, or over the wall, it’s pretty clear that the wall is not a silver bullet for securing our border.

According to GAO’s report:

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, CBP recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing. According to our analysis of these data, illegal entrants breached legacy pedestrian fencing at an average rate of 82 breaches per fence mile, compared to an average of 14 breaches per fence mile of modern pedestrian fencing.

What about a taller, or more complete fence or wall? According to GAO, border agents have found evidence of people using small aircraft to carry contraband over the fencing, as well as building subterranean tunnels to go under the fencing. No matter how tall or long the wall that President Trump asks Congress to fund, people will find ways to get through, and our border agents will have to react nimbly to the inevitable breaches.

The truth is that expending billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall is not a border security strategy. Over the past decade, the U.S. has already invested a quarter of a trillion dollars to enhance security along our borders. Net migration from Mexico is less than zero. Overall apprehensions of undocumented migrants are at 40 year lows. Many experts agree the border is more secure than it has been in years. Continuing the tremendous progress made to strengthen our border should be a bipartisan priority, and investing in the technology and tools that help border officials stay nimble and achieve their mission should be our top priority.

That’s why we must take a layered, informed approach to security, including people, technology, and, where appropriate, physical barriers. We should couple that with a strategy to address the root causes of migration to our southern border, and comprehensive immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship that is safe, legal and humane. I know my colleagues and I have some work to do before we can reform our broken immigration system. But the President’s one-size-fits-all border wall and his other other uninformed approaches to addressing our immigration system will not make us more secure. Moreover, it will waste billions of taxpayer dollars.

We need to listen to the many experts who have told us that security can’t be achieved only at the border. As General John Kelly, now Secretary of Homeland Security said in his nomination hearing:

“A physical barrier, in and of itself, will not do the job…I believe the defense of the southwest border really starts about 1,500 miles south, and that is partnering with some great countries as far as south as Peru really that are very cooperative with us in terms of getting after the drug production and transport, very, very good with us.”

Building a wall is an expensive and ineffective substitute for comprehensive immigration reform, and I agree with Secretary Kelly that any of our efforts to secure the border will show little return on investment if we don’t work with our neighbors in Central America to address root causes of migration.

Though constructing a wall may be the worst idea in the President’s executive order, it’s not the only ineffective immigration policy President Trump is doubling down on with this order. The executive order also calls for the construction of new detention facilities at our southern border, which will likely house nonviolent undocumented immigrants at great expense to the taxpayer. Additionally, the order would grow the force of CBP agents by nearly 25%, necessitating a cut in hiring and training standards and most likely leading the agency to hire candidates susceptible to corruption by drug cartels.

The American people deserve smarter, less wasteful border security.

I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation to rescind President Trump’s executive order to build a wall, and work with me on supporting our border agents and strengthening border security.

It was precisely this type of scientific denial that Democratic Senators were concerned about, and that he disavowed as he sought confirmation to be Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator. The American public deserves to know that their top environmental official is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He should walk down the hall, talk with his scientific staff, become informed about the issue, and publicly correct these statements immediately.

Here’s a review of his statements and the facts:

What did Mr. Pruitt tell us he intended to do about carbon dioxide in his confirmation hearings a little over six weeks ago?:

Question for the record from Senator Sanders: “Do you see any reason for reducing carbon emissions that come from using fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas?”

Mr. Pruitt: “I believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the regulation of carbon dioxide. If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework established by Congress.”

Hearing question from Senator Sanders: “You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to do what the scientific community is telling us, in order to make sure that this planet is healthy for our children and grandchildren?”

Mr. Pruitt: “Senator, I believe that the Administrator has a very important role to perform in regulating CO2.”

Hearing Question from Senator Gillibrand: “Do you believe also that sea levels are rising?”

Mr. Pruitt. “Senator, I believe that the EPA, because of the Mass v. EPA case and the endangerment finding, has obligations to address the CO2 issue. In doing so, they need to follow the processes as set up by Congress. So I think it is very important to do both.”

Hearing exchange with Senator Markey: “Will you promise to keep on the books the scientific finding that carbon pollution poses a danger to the American public health and welfare?”

Mr. Pruitt: “Two things, Senator. First, with respect to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court said to the EPA that they had to make a decision…To determine whether CO2 posed a risk and, as you indicated, in 2009 they did so. That is the law of the land, those two cases. There is an obligation of the EPA Administrator to do his or her job in fulfilling Massachusetts v. EPA and that endangerment finding from 2009.”

Follow up from Senator Markey: “So you will keep that scientific finding on the books?”

Mr. Pruitt: “That the endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected.”

Follow up from Senator Markey: “You will not review that scientific finding?”

Mr. Pruitt: “There is nothing that I know that would cause a review at this point.”

And what does the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the one by which Mr. Pruitt says he will abide, say about carbon dioxide?:

Justice Stevens writing the opinion of the Court: The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical … substance[s] which [are] emitted into … the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.”

Mr. Pruitt’s lack of a scientific background or reliance on scientific advisors is showing through when it comes to his carbon dioxide statement:

Question for the record from Senator Cardin: “What is your scientific background and what expertise do you have in environmental science?”

Mr. Pruitt: “My degrees are in communications, political science, and law. As with prior EPA Administrators who held bachelor of arts degrees, I completed science courses as a prerequisite to requiring my degree. Also, I understand that six of the 12 people who have been confirmed as EPA Administrator (including the first four individuals) had law degrees.”

Question for the record from Senator Carper: “Who serves or has served as your scientific advisor for climate change related issues during your time as attorney general? Please provide their names, their titles, and when they served as your science advisors.”

Mr. Pruitt: “The Office of Attorney General does not have a science advisor to advise on climate change related issues.”

He now runs an agency full of scientists. What do EPA’s scientists say about carbon dioxide’s contribution to global warming?:

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2014, CO2 accounted for about 80.9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.” (Source: EPA Website Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page, found here).

What do other federal agencies and scientific bodies say about carbon dioxide?:

“Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived “forcing” of climate change.” (Source: NASA Global Climate Change Page, found here)

“Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to over 375 ppm today — higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.” (Source: Joint Statement of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academies of 10 other nations, found here)

Mr. Pruitt expressed concerns about the degree and extent of climate change when he appeared before the Senate, but not whether or not carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gases contributes to it:

Question for the record from Senator Cardin: “Do you believe climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet?”

Mr. Pruitt: “The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”

Is Mr. Pruitt’s going back to his troubling views on climate change that he regularly expressed on before the Congressional hearing?

Mr. Pruitt: “We’ve had ebb and flow, we’ve had obviously climate conditions change throughout our history and that is scientific fact. It gets cooler. It gets hotter. And we do not know the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do we know, the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and man’s contribution to that, is making it far worse than it is.” (Exploring Energy Radio Program, May 19, 2016)

Mr. Pruitt: “Is it (climate change) truly man-made and is this simply just another period of time where the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat, I mean is it just typical natural type of occurrences as opposed to what the (Obama) Administration says?” (Exploring Energy Radio Program, October 13, 2016)

Delaware is lucky to have some of the best and brightest military and civilian personnel stationed here, and we are so proud to have them all as part of our family in the First State.

In September, Congress approved a much-needed military infrastructure bill that included over $80 million in federal funding to build a new hanger for the C-5M Super Galaxy and replace the on-base elementary school.

I fought tooth and nail to make sure Dover AFB received the critical funding it needed, and this week I was excited to visit the Base and see how these projects will help Dover accomplish the mission and take care of military families for years to come.

I visited the 436th Maintenance Squadron Isochronal group who are charged with inspecting and servicing the C-5M Super Galaxy, one of the largest aircrafts in the world. From their station in Dover, C-5M Super Galaxies fly cargo around the world, delivering combat equipment to our troops in the field and bringing humanitarian aid to those in need.

The men and women of Maintenance Squadron Isochronal group are working tirelessly to inspect the aircraft and ensure they are safe, effective, and can support our military and save taxpayer dollars by staying in flight longer.

Along with supporting military operations around the world, Dover Air Force Base has the solemn duty of receiving the remains of our fallen soldiers when they return home. The Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations (AFMAO) unit is working to fulfill our nation’s commitment of ensuring dignity, honor, and respect to our fallen and prepare them to be returned to their families. Dover is the only port mortuary for the military, and every fallen service member killed abroad travels through Dover.

Visiting the mortuary and meeting with the military and civilian personnel there, I saw first-hand the pride with which these men and women conduct their sacred duty. I am pleased by the continuing progress being made at the mortuary to improve its operations and ensure Delaware is doing its part to honor our nation’s fallen heroes.

The military infrastructure funding approved by Congress in September will do a lot of good to ensure that the individuals working hard in Dover have the resources they need to do their work effectively and support our military around the world.

I’m so proud of the work that the men and women of Dover AFB do every day, and I will continue working in the U.S. Senate to ensure that Dover Air Force Base has the resources it needs to perform its sacred mission and care for our military families in Dover.

The science is clear — climate change is real and carbon air pollution is to blame. We see the effects of carbon pollution and climate change every day, from the rampant wildfires in the west to the 200-year floods in the southeast to the rising sea levels along the coasts. The harmful effects of rising sea levels are especially evident in low-lying coastal states like my home state of Delaware.

Every year we fail to take real action, the effects of climate change around the globe become more severe, more costly, and increasingly irreversible. The longer we wait to act, that burden on our children and on the generations that will come after them becomes greater and greater. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office lists climate change as one of the biggest financial risks to our country.

Although the federal government has been slow to lead, states across the country like Delaware and California have forged ahead with their own actions to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, like so many other clean air issues facing this country, a handful of states cannot tackle the greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime on their own. All states, and all nations for that matter, must do their fair share to help stem the tide of climate change.

Luckily, our nation has existing federal clean air protections — established in the Clean Air Act –that can unite our country in the effort to reduce our nation’s carbon footprint and responsibly address the harmful effects of climate change. The Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard Nixon and updated by President George H.W. Bush, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set federal standards for all types of harmful air pollutants that endanger public health and to ensure that our clean air protections reflect the latest science. For over four decades, the bipartisan vision embodied in our nation’s clean air laws has translated into healthier air for hundreds of millions of Americans, as well as a productive economy.

In August of last year, the EPA implemented the Clean Air Act as it was directed by Congress to do decades ago, by finalizing the Clean Power Plan, which addresses the emissions from our nation’s greatest carbon polluters — fossil fuel power plants. According to the EPA, this rule will cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 32 percent by 2030. That is equal to the annual emissions of more than 150 million cars or the emissions that result from powering over half the homes in America. For those of us living in states that are already experiencing the harmful impacts of climate change, the EPA’s actions have been long awaited, but welcome news.

Opponents to this rule argue that we have to choose between having a cleaner, healthier environment and having a robust, growing economy. They say that we have to choose between our children’s climate future and today’s economy. I believe this is a false choice. We have seen this tired argument proven false time and time again, particularly with clean air regulations.

As someone who was born in coal country — Beckley, West Virginia — and spent most of his adult life in the lowest lying state in the nation — Delaware — I am conscious of the delicate balance we must find between differing state priorities. I believe the EPA has struck that balance with the Clean Power Plan. Through unprecedented outreach, the EPA set carbon targets that are both meaningful and achievable for all fifty states. At the same time, states are given the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. This thoughtful, adaptable approach to ensuring that our air is clean is exactly what Congress intended so many years ago.

When it comes to confronting other pressing global challenges like terrorism and cyber warfare, the United States does not sit back and wait for someone else to lead. Instead, our country takes the lead, and works with other nations to encourage them to follow our good example. It should be no different in addressing the challenge of climate change. I look forward to the day when the Clean Power Plan can be fully implemented, and we can finally look our children in the eye and say that we stood up and fought for their climate future.

Earlier this week, I returned to Southeast Asia for the first time since 1998. It was both a journey back in time and a look ahead to the future of U.S. — Vietnamese relations. Decades ago, I came to this part of the world as a young naval flight officer on the first of three deployments with my squadron of Navy P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft, a unit of the Seventh Fleet.

We flew a variety of missions including low-level surveillance operations off the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia, searching for — among other things — infiltrator trawlers disguised as fishing boats attempting to resupply the Viet Cong in their efforts to overthrow our ally, the government of South Vietnam.

With the Vietnam war winding down, I completed my active duty tour in 1973, took a commission in the Naval Reserve and continued to fly for another 18 years as a P-3 aircraft mission commander until the end of the Cold War. Along the way, I moved to Delaware, earned an MBA there, was elected state treasurer at age 29 and, six years later, became Delaware’s lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Barely a month after flying my last P-3 mission in the summer of 1991 and retiring as a Navy captain, I led a bipartisan, six-member congressional delegation of Vietnam veterans back to Southeast Asia.

Among our six members was Florida congressman Pete Peterson, a former Air Force pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent more than six years as a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton.” We went back in part because of the urging of veterans and veterans organizations who were convinced that hundreds — maybe thousands — of our MIAs were being held in captivity in that part of the world. We were also encouraged by the administration of George H.W. Bush. Our mission was twofold: first, find out what happened to the MIAs whose bodies were never recovered; and, second, try to meet with the incoming leader of Vietnam and explore with him the possibility of moving toward normalized relations over time if the fate of the MIAs could be resolved.

We began our ten-day mission in Hanoi. When it became clear after a few days there that the new leader was not ready to meet with us, we worked our way south to Saigon, or Ho Chi Minh City, before going on to Cambodia and Laos. During our two days in Cambodia, a criminal ring was uncovered there, trying to extort money from American families by using photos that originally appeared in Soviet news publications and asserting that they were American POWs. Those photos found their way to the covers of Time and Newsweek and ran on the front pages of every major newspaper in America fanning the belief that many of our missing were still alive.

After meeting with leaders and others in Cambodia and Laos, we headed back to Saigon for a final round of meetings and interviews before preparing to depart for the States. On the morning of our departure, though, we received a call from Hanoi saying that the General Secretary Do Muoi could meet with us that day if we’d stop by Hanoi on our way home. We told them, “We’re on our way!”

That day, we met with Do Muoi in a spacious drawing room of a lovely house in Hanoi. Staffed by only a couple of aides, he greeted us warmly, and I began to introduce each of my colleagues to him. Some good staff work had turned up a number of similarities in the backgrounds of Do Muoi and one of our congressmen, Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland. I mentioned as much to Do Muoi, explaining that both of them had painted houses in their youth and later became teachers. I went on to say that they both had served as soldiers in combat, had been seriously wounded in combat and survived. Finally, I pointed out that both of them had sought and won leadership positions in the governments of their respective countries.

By then, Do Muoi had begun to focus intently on Wayne who was sitting among the rest of us some ten feet from the General Secretary. The Vietnamese leader then asked Wayne where he’d been shot, and Wayne explained that the bullet entered above his heart and emerged above his shoulder blade. Do Muoi went on to ask, not once, but twice, if he could see the wound. Wayne remained seated, speechless like the rest of us. Then, Do Muoi got up from his chair, walked slowly across the room, leaned down and gently pulled Wayne to his feet. He proceeded to lift the back of Wayne’s loosely fitting shirt to expose the still-ugly scar. Do Muoi then traced its circumference with his finger, pulled Wayne’s shirt back down and embraced him, creating one of the most emotional moments of my life, and bringing with it an opportunity for an unexpected breakthrough.

After we had regained our composure, we sat down with the General Secretary and began reviewing with him the roadmap to normalized relations that the Bush administration had given to us just in case a moment like that presented itself.

The roadmap first called on the Vietnamese — who were meticulous record keepers — to provide access to Vietnam’s war museum records as well as to its archives to our investigators so that they might search for clues to help resolve the mysteries of our MIAs disappearance. The roadmap called for the U.S. to restore telecommunications with Vietnam if they would take this preliminary step. With the strong encouragement of our six member delegation and the tireless efforts of Senators John McCain and John Kerry, the Vietnamese decided to take the step and, after they had done so, telecommunications were restored between our two countries.

Later, the Vietnamese would take many additional steps providing, for example, information about crash sites and access to them. Hundreds of excavations followed, along with the ability for our investigators to interview a large number of eye witnesses across the country to gain valuable firsthand accounts, and our country aided Vietnamese in efforts to gain closure for a number of their own families whose loved ones remains had never been recovered. With each step that the Vietnamese took, the U.S. reciprocated. Do Muoi’ s concerns that the U.S. might somehow move the goal posts faded away, and a more trusting relationship between our two countries began to emerge.

In 1995, diplomatic relations were restored.

Three years later, I would lead a trade delegation from Delaware to Vietnam and several other Asian countries. As we stepped off of our plane in Hanoi, we were greeted by our new ambassador, former Congressman Pete Peterson! In 1995, full diplomatic relationships were established between our two countries, with Senators McCain and Kerry again leading the way.

Since then, trade between our two countries has grown dramatically. America is now the number one export market for Vietnamese products. American exports to Vietnam have risen, but not as strongly. When talks began several years ago about the possibility of forming a new trading bloc that would stretch from the Americas to Australia, Japan and Malaysia, Vietnam signaled its strong interest in joining it. Ultimately, the Obama administration supported Vietnam’s inclusion, but made it clear that if Vietnam were to join, it would have to agree to phase out the tariff and non-tariff barriers that it has relied on to help build up large trade surpluses.

Vietnam has agreed to do so, but even before the Trans Pacific Partnership has been ratified, they took steps this past week that strongly suggest a new willingness to significantly increase their purchase of American products. Vietnam announced, for example, that it would purchase 100 new Boeing 737s in a deal valued at more than $11 billion. Vietnam also announced that it will buy American-made Pratt and Whitney aircraft engines worth $3 billion over the next several years. The decision by the Obama administration to lift the restrictions on the sale of a broader range of military equipment to Vietnam will not only allow that country to strengthen their defensive military capabilities in the face of Chinese sabre-rattling in the South China Sea, it will also serve to further bolster American exports to Vietnam for years to come.

Some critics of the Obama administration have voiced concerns that lifting restrictions on weapon sales gave away leverage in our efforts to encourage Vietnam to release the remaining 100 political prisoners in this country of nearly 100 million people and increase basic human rights such as freedom of expression and assembly. Others — including the President and some Vietnamese dissidents — note that the sale of arms to Vietnam will only take place on a case by case basis. Human rights, they argue, will definitely remain a part of the equation.

Finally, a number of other encouraging announcements emerged during President Obama’s visit to Vietnam. Vietnam will now allow independent unions to form and represent workers in their efforts to improve wages and working conditions. Both nations also agreed to continue to promote student exchanges. And a longtime dream, the establishment of a fully independent university in Vietnam — the Fulbright University — is now on the road to becoming a reality.

We’ve come a long way in our relationship with Vietnam since I first visited Southeast Asia during the middle of a war that took 58,000 American lives and many more Vietnamese lives.

Yet, somehow, we seem to have reached a point where both countries are prepared to let bygones be bygones and to look for ways to work together in ways that wouldn’t have seemed possible not that many years ago.

Another pleasant surprise awaiting Americans in Vietnam is the genuine warmth of the people there toward Americans. It’s hard to miss. The image of “The Ugly American” is long gone, hopefully forever. In fact, a recent poll among the Vietnamese revealed that 78 percent of them have a positive view of America and Americans. Ironically, they seem to like our country more than some Americans do!

Let me close with the same words that I used several times while addressing audiences in Vietnam this week. “If you want to travel fast, go alone. If you want to travel far, go together.” More and more our two countries are electing to go together. If we do, I’m convinced that we’ll end up traveling a lot further than either of us could ever go on our own.

The Continental Congress ordered that construction begin on the first USS Delaware in 1775 in the Philadelphia shipyard. When she was completed in July 1776, the USS Delaware sailed the Delaware River, helping to protect Philadelphia from the advancing British fleet.

On September 26, 1777, the British fleet arrived in Philadelphia. Under the command of Commodore John Barry — whose namesake bridge connects Delaware and New Jersey today — the Delaware fought throughout the night against overwhelming odds, surrendering only after running aground and being surrounded by British vessels.

Since the completion of the first USS Delaware in July 1776, six U.S. Navy ships have borne the Delaware name while countless Delawareans have served to protect American interests at home and around the world.

In the War of 1812, ships stationed in Lewes protected critically important powder works on the Brandywine River just outside of Wilmington. One such ship, the USS Wasp — Commanded by Delaware born Commodore Jacob Jones — survived an ambush by the British Ship HMS Frolic and went on to defeat and capture the Frolic in the ensuing battle.

In World War 2, Delaware answered the call to mobilize and 10,000 Delawareans went to work building hundreds of ships along the banks of the Christina River to support our war efforts. And, during the Cold War that followed, Cape Henlopen played host to highly-classified technology known as the U.S. Navy Sound Surveillance System Station, used to monitor naval threats up and down the east coast and track Soviet nuclear submarines as they moved through the Atlantic Ocean.

This past weekend, I was honored to join our Second Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, to continue that proud tradition at the keel-laying ceremony for SSN-791, a Virginia-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine that will be the seventh Navy vessel to bear the Delaware name.

I served as a naval flight officer for five years during a hot war in Southeast Asia and for another 18 years until the end of the Cold War as a Navy P-3 aircraft mission commander. In addition to flying thousands of surveillance missions in the Vietnam War, P-3 aircrews flew at least as many missions tracking hundreds of Soviet submarines throughout the Cold War, sometimes in concert with U.S. fast attack nuclear submarines. Aided by the listening station near Lewes, we studied the tactics of the Soviets, their capabilities and their operating procedures so that we would be prepared to destroy them if the Cold War ever turned into a hot one. For training, we would occasionally track — or at least attempt to track — U.S. Navy fast attack nuclear submarines, just like the USS Delaware being built today.

Having spent nearly a quarter century studying these submarines and their operations, I know what a great honor it is to have one of these incredible vessels named after Delaware. Four years ago, Delawarean Steven Llanso brought this idea to the forefront when he wrote a letter to the editor of The News Journal, urging the paper to push for one of five newly announced submarines to be named after Delaware. Steven wrote in 2012:

“The Navy announced on Monday that each of five new submarines (which currently are named for states) would be named after a state that hasn’t been represented in the Navy in more than 60 years.

“They missed an obvious candidate and should rectify that oversight by naming the SSN 791 after Delaware. The last USS Delaware (a battleship) had her name stricken in 1923, so the First State certainly qualifies…”

I knew this was a worthy cause, and one that I, too, felt passionately about. Just one month later, our Congressional Delegation — Senator Chris Coons, Congressman John Carney and I — joined together to send a letter to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus that called on the Navy to name a submarine after the First State and followed that up with phone calls to Secretary Mabus further encouraging him to keep the First State in mind.

Just six months later, we had our answer: a state-of-the-art submarine — one of the most modern and technologically advanced in the world — would be named the USS Delaware, and a ship bearing our great state’s name would, once again, set sail to serve and protect U.S. interests at home and around the globe.

Delaware’s role in the U.S. Navy has come full circle — from a 24-gun sailing ship protecting Philadelphia from the British on the eve of our Independence, to one of the world’s most impressive vessels that can operate around the globe. It is a great source of pride and joy for me that we welcome the USS Delaware to our proud family.

Ours is a military family that already features a world-class airlift facility with world-class airmen at Dover Air Force Base; outstanding citizen-soldiers and airmen in the Delaware Army and Air National Guard; an important Coast Guard contingent at Indian River Inlet; and, of course, the more than 73,000 veterans who currently live in Delaware.

The USS Delaware is a testament to the duty, dedication and sacrifices of these brave men and women, and all those who — for more than 200 years — have served their country in Delaware or in defense of the people of Delaware. I cannot wait until the capstone of this legacy is cemented in 2018, when Dr. Biden christens this ship, and the USS Delaware — after a nearly 100 year hiatus — patrols the seas once again.

I’ve had a lot of different jobs since that very first Earth Day — naval commander, state treasurer and Governor of Delaware — just to name a few. But over the years, my most cherished and most important job has been the role of father. I’m blessed with three wonderful sons who make me proud and thankful every day. A major motivator in my life has been my love for my children, and my desire to make the world a better place for them.

That’s why I consider every day to be Earth Day. Protections for our environment have come a long way since 1970, but we still have a lot more work to do to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a healthy planet to call home.

Today, on the 46th Earth Day celebration, the United States and 170 other countries are stepping up and taking steps to protect and preserve our Earth for future generations by signing the Paris Agreement, a landmark international agreement aimed at stemming the tide of climate change by limiting global greenhouse gas emissions and total global warming to less than two degrees Celsius.

The scientific evidence is clear: our climate is changing at a troublesome rate and the effects are devastating. Whether it’s the increasing intensity and frequency of severe weather events, the persistent droughts that damage our crops and livestock, or rising sea levels that threaten our coastal communities, the world has seen stark reminders that the effects of climate change threaten our safety and way of life. Climate change knows no boundaries, and it’s certainly not an issue that one country can tackle alone. In order to effectively address climate change we have to take action on a global scale.

When it comes to global challenges — such as terrorism and cyber attacks — the United States doesn’t sit back and wait for someone to lead, our country takes the lead. That’s the case with climate change, too. Over the last several years leading up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, the Obama Administration began curbing harmful carbon emissions, one of the root causes of climate change, here at home. Since President Obama retook a leadership role to address climate change and mitigate its dangerous effects, other countries have followed.

Today’s actions are another example that when the United States takes a leadership role in addressing our greatest global environmental challenges, other countries will follow.

I thank President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and their teams for making this momentous Earth Day possible.

After I concluded my remarks, we opened it up to questions from the audience. Among the first questions that came up was, “Why isn’t there a national park in Delaware?”

It was true — the “First State” was the only state in our union without one.

That evening I also learned that the top tourist destination of people from other countries visiting America from around the world was our national parks. Another person added that night, “Maybe we should do something about it so some of those foreign visitors would visit our national park, eat in our restaurants, stay in our hotels, shop in a state without a sales tax, and enjoy some of the best beaches on the East Coast.”

I said I thought they had a point and that I’d give it some thought. And, starting the next day, I did.

Long before the idea for the National Historical Park we have today was born, though, then-Sen. Joe Biden explored creating a national park for Delaware in the Great Cypress Swamp located in the southeastern corner of Sussex County. However, a group of constituents fond of hunting there was not fond of it becoming a national park, so the idea was soon dead in the water, or as some would say, it was dead in “The Swamp.”

In the weeks following that tourism event on the Riverfront, I began to bounce the idea of a national park off of other Delawareans up and down the state. They had no shortage of ideas. Good ideas from all over Delaware, including some that came to us through social media. The question then became how do we go about choosing from among those ideas, and once we’d made that decision, how could we convince the National Park Service to embrace it.

The next step was to create an exploratory group, led by legendary University of Delaware professor Dr. Jim Soles. This citizens group was comprised of wonderful people from throughout Delaware. They traveled the state, talking to constituents and holding public meetings to gather further input on what might make a great national park in Delaware.

People suggested historic gems like Fort Christina in Wilmington where, more than 375 years ago, the first Swedes and Finns settled in America; Fort Delaware, located in the middle of the Delaware River off of Delaware City, which held some 30,000 Confederate soldiers during the Civil War; The Green in Dover where Delaware delegates debated in December 1787 at the Golden Fleece Tavern whether we should become the first to ratify the constitution; the Ryves Holt House in Lewes, originally built in 1665 by early Dutch Settlers, the oldest house in Delaware and one of the 50 oldest in the country.

There were even some wildly entertaining ideas like a park where visitors would scuba dive to explore shipwrecks off Cape Henlopen.

In any event, our exploratory group gathered these ideas from folks up and down Delaware and reviewed them carefully. Eventually, they came to believe that emerging from all of these ideas — except for the underwater idea, of course — was a central theme: early colonial settlement leading up to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on December 7, 1787.

One day, Jim Soles said to me that rather than just picking one site for our national park, why don’t select a number of them which — together — told an important, but little-known chapter in the story about how this country was formed.

Late, we would take this idea, along with others, to the administration of President George W. Bush and, in particular, to the National Park Service which later would launch a Special Resource Study. It would eventually conclude that the Soles-led exploratory committee was on to something.

What made Delaware unique in their eyes and worthy of a national park designation was our story of early colonial settlement leading up to the ratification of the Constitution. The National Park Service ran that idea up the chain of command in the Department of the Interior. When it reached the top, Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne concurred, and we thought we were on our way.

If only it had been that easy.

Five years would pass before we would realize our goal. In the meantime, we drafted federal legislation and found ways to make sure this concept would fit within the national budget.

Given that the National Park Service barely had enough funding to operate existing national parks, we worked for several years to come up with ways to offset the cost of a national park in Delaware. Meanwhile, we held over a dozen public meetings in Delaware, as well as legislative hearings in both chambers of Congress to continue to build bipartisan support at home and in our national capitol.

In March 2013, we realized a breakthrough. Encouraged by our vice president, congressional delegation and Governor Jack Markell, President Obama designated portions of our proposed national park as a National Monument, although not as a national park.

While we were grateful for this important step, it wasn’t the same as Delaware being the home of America’s newest national park, so we went back to work and kept pushing until the finish line was in sight.

Finally, in December 2014, the U.S. Senate approved the First State National Historical Park as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. It quickly passed the House and was signed into law by the President.

At long last, an effort that spanned more than a decade had paid off.

From former Interior Secretaries Dirk Kempthorne and Ken Salazar to famed film documentarian Ken Burns, our national park has benefited from many dedicated supporters who were committed to seeing it grow from an idea to reality. One of its biggest champions, Vice President Joe Biden, joined many of us at the historic Courthouse in Old New Castle to celebrate Delaware’s inclusion into the National Park System in March 2013.

This would have been an impossible feat were it not for the steadfast support of Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Congressman John Carney, former Sen. Ted Kaufman and former Congressman Mike Castle. Helping us along the way were Pennsylvania’s Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey, as well as our wonderful neighbor in Southeast Pennsylvania, Congressman Pat Meehan, our state and local leaders, and most important, the residents of the First State who never gave up on this dream.

Together, we have helped to ensure that Delaware’s vital and unique role in launching the most enduring democracy in the history of the world will not only be preserved but shared with generations to come from every corner of this planet.

This op-ed originally appeared in the Delaware News Journal on April 10, 2016.

It was my first visit to that country, but not my first visit to that part of the world. Years ago, I served three tours in Southeast Asia as a naval flight officer during the Vietnam War. Two decades later, I would return to lead a congressional delegation of Vietnam veterans on a mission to find out what happened to the thousands of M.I.A.’s from that war whose bodies were never recovered.

Our president during much of the Vietnam War was Richard Nixon, a Republican. He was regarded by many as a staunch anti-communist. Nixon surprised many Americans and much of the world in 1972, however, when he accepted an invitation for a state visit from the leaders of Communist China, essentially opening the door to the most populous country in the world, and one of North Vietnam’s strongest supporters at the time.

The China awaiting Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, bore little resemblance to the China that our delegation visited a couple weeks ago. In 1972, China was struggling through a Cultural Revolution launched by that country’s leader in 1969 in an effort to fend off the emerging market forces that he feared could someday undermine the revolution he launched there over 20 years earlier.

For several years after Nixon’s historic visit to China, that nation continued to struggle as it sought to decide what path it would follow — Soviet styled Communism, socialism, capitalism or some kind of hybrid that incorporated elements of all three. In the end, China chose a path that was uniquely Chinese. It would be neither fish nor fowl, and it continues to evolve to this day. While some of China’s more than one billion citizens still live in deep poverty, incomes and the quality of life for a majority of the country’s people have measurably improved over the past 30 years.

The Chinese economy continues to be in a period of transition today. As their economy evolves from one that’s focused largely on manufacturing and exports to a more consumer-driven service economy, our nations have an opportunity to better balance and strengthen the trade relationship between us, benefiting both Chinese and Americans alike. A key to achieving this goal is for our two countries to successfully conclude the negotiations now underway on a bilateral investment treaty and to implement it. Doing so hasn’t been easy, but it’s important that we succeed.

As it turns out, trade is only one of many issues on which America’s and China’s interests converge. Others include climate change, energy and transportation policy, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea, just to name a few. We need to work together where we can, and when we disagree, engage in ways that promise to narrow our differences even if we don’t eliminate them entirely.

During our stay in China, I traveled in the provinces closest to Beijing by air, by train and by bus. It was hard not to notice the fruits of the enormous investments that the Chinese have made in modernizing their transportation system. Instead of dilapidated roads, highways and bridges, I saw a modern highway system being built that is reminiscent of the United States’ interstate highway system in its earlier years. Sleek, beautiful trains and train stations help to connect the new urban areas, enabling the movement of people and goods.

Visitors to China will still see quite a few bicycles on streets and roads along with a growing number of low-emission buses. Construction of brand new subway systems in larger cities continues unabated, and the growing number of modern automobiles we saw on China’s roads, highways and bridges surprised me. Many of them are familiar American brands, too. Last year, the sale of new vehicles there approached 25 million units compared to roughly 17 million in the States. In fact, more Ford and GM products were sold in China last year than in America.

During one part of my visit to China, I traveled to the City of Hangzhou, which is approximately 100 miles southwest of Shanghai. There, I met with Dr. Lu Guanqiu, chairman of Wanxiang, believed to be China’s largest automotive parts business. Wanxiang has made many investments in the United States, including the acquisition of Delaware’s former GM plant near Wilmington, which has been idle for over a half-dozen years. We discussed Dr. Lu’s genuine affection for the First State, as well as the future of the auto plant. It was a good conversation, and while I’m still not convinced that Wanxiang will one day build cars there, Dr. Lu made clear to me his intention to make investments in the Boxwood Road facility in the months to come that will foster real economic activity and job creation there over time.

Another thing that struck me during our visit to China was the values that are held in high esteem in Chinese culture. For instance, most Chinese people continue to revere their elders. In fact, while we were in that nation, we witnessed a three-day holiday during which large numbers of Chinese returned to their roots, visiting the places where their ancestors’ remains are buried or kept.

Chinese families also place high importance on education. Their emphasis on the value of education helps to explain why China now produces more engineers than the United States or any other country. I was also pleasantly surprised to come into contact with Chinese citizens of all ages who spoke at least some English or attempted to do so. Many of them study English in school. This year, 300,000 of them will study abroad in America in undergraduate or graduate programs, too, and as many as a third that many Americans study in China now. Both numbers continue to rise.

The freedom of religion that we take for granted in America is not yet a reality in China, but that, too, appears to be gradually changing. I was told that Buddhism has attracted the most followers thus far, but Christianity is the fastest growing religion there. That may well be true. One day, we visited a large printing plant where a million or more Chinese-language Bibles are printed and distributed throughout the country each year. Many more are printed in other languages and distributed to nations around the world.

The freedom of speech and freedom of the press that Americans take for granted are not yet a reality in China, either. Concerns over access to platforms like Google and Facebook have kept them out of the country because of fears that they could eventually be used to help undermine the government or even send it spiraling out of control someday. My guess is that, while those restrictions may be eased over time, they aren’t going to disappear any time soon.

As many Americans know, China’s rapid development over the past few decades has brought with it serious problems with the pollution of their air and water. Following the widespread outcry of many Chinese people, these problems have started receiving the attention they deserve. I like to run and was pleasantly surprised to be able to run outdoors on several of the days we were in China without having to worry about air quality. Still, we saw a number of people wearing facemasks, and several people told me if I’d been there a week earlier, I’d have been wearing one, too.

Nonetheless, the Chinese government has begun making concerted efforts to meet the ambitious carbon reduction goals it has adopted for 2030 by launching a multi-prong strategy: shutting down older coal-fired utilities; replacing them with lower emission plants, as well as with wind and solar power; constructing dozens of new nuclear power plants; and, building millions of low-emission vehicles large and small, while also building modern transit systems in many urban areas. Achieving the emission reduction goals the Chinese have set won’t be easy, but they appear to be making a real commitment as they’ve come to realize that climate change is real and that they don’t have to choose between clean air and water in order to have a strong economy.

Another thing that I hadn’t anticipated in China was the generally warm welcome we received from many Chinese people, young and old, when they realized that we were Americans. Again and again, they told us of the connections that many of them had with the United States. Some of them had either visited our country, were planning to do so someday, or knew friends or relatives who had visited, studied or even lived in America. One of the biggest attractions for Chinese tourists in America are our national parks. I’m hoping that a number of them will make their way to Delaware before long and visit one of America’s newest national parks in the First State!

Before we get too carried away, though, all of this isn’t to suggest that China and its people are ready for a love affair with America and Americans. There are still very real differences between China and America. China is unlikely to become a Jeffersonian democracy anytime soon. Their aggressive actions in the South China Sea, where my squadron flew many missions during the Vietnam War, are cause for concern. In addition, for many years, the Chinese have utilized cyber theft to steal America’s intellectual property in order to gain an economic advantage in product development. An agreement reached last September between President Obama and Chinese President Xi gives rise to the possibility of making progress on that front, though, if it’s faithfully implemented. One other bone of contention between us for many years has been the alleged manipulation by China of its currency to keep the price of its exports artificially low, allowing them to flood American markets with Chinese goods. That may be changing, too, however, as agencies like the U.S. Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund seem to be softening their respective stances on the issue. We need to remain vigilant to ensure that it doesn’t recur.

Perhaps no issue better highlights the potential payoff for continuing to strengthen our cooperation with China than North Korea and its pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. For decades, North Korea has remained isolated in the international community. China serves as the only ally and — aside from South Korea — the only trading partner of this pariah state. Until recently, China resisted calls by the international community for it to exert greater influence over North Korea’s leaders, including the unstable young despot now in control of North Korea’s large army, its significant cyber capabilities and a growing nuclear weapons program. Fortunately, that now appears to be changing as China has joined much of the international community this year in imposing harsh sanctions on North Korea to compel it to give up its nuclear weapons and missile development. China’s steadfast support of tough, multilateral economic sanctions against Iran helped bring that nation to the bargaining table and led to Iran agreeing to forego a nuclear weapons development program. If China shows the same kind of resolve with respect to North Korea, a similar outcome becomes possible, and that would be a blessing for the world.

In closing, I would just add that America has important relationships with a number of nations in the world, but I came away from our trip to China feeling more strongly than I had expected that our relationship with China may be our country’s most important one today. It’s essential to both nations — to their people and to ours — that we continue to work hard to get it right.

Guatemala — Thursday, January 14th

On Thursday, I flew to Guatemala to witness Guatemalans’ effort to bring about change in their country –the inauguration of a new president, Jimmy Morales. I attended as part of the official delegation with Vice President Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Congresswoman Norma Torres of California, State Department Counselor Thomas Shannon, National Security Council Senior Director Mark Feierstein and U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala Todd Robinson.

Before the inauguration ceremony, I joined the Vice President in a meeting with the leaders of the Northern Triangle countries, President-Elect Morales, President Salvador Sanchez Ceren of El Salvador, and President Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras.

In that meeting, I expressed to these leaders that there is a moment of opportunity for their governments to make their nations a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

We also heard from them on their progress in upholding their commitments to the “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle” and their work to promote economic opportunity, reestablish rule of law, tackle violence, and inspire hope in the Northern Triangle.

This plan was launched in 2014 by the presidents of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala with the support of Vice President Joe Biden. The Alliance for Prosperity focuses government efforts in four key areas: fostering economic growth; investing in education and workforce development; promoting the rule of law by tackling corruption; and rebuilding citizens’ trust in the government by increasing transparency.

The leaders of the Northern Triangle have all committed to the Alliance for Prosperity and understand that they have a tough job ahead of them. But with leadership, courage and hard work, and help from their neighbors, the Northern Triangle can forge a better, safer, more hopeful future.

They can do it. And the United States and others stand ready to help.

As part of that effort, Congress recently appropriated $750 million in Fiscal Year 2016 to support initiatives in the Northern Triangle to increase economic prosperity, rule of law and citizen security. We will provide technical assistance and other support to develop the police force and justice system, community-level violence prevention programs, job and life-skills programs for at-risk youth, services at domestic violence assistance centers, and literacy and vocational education programs.

This investment underscores our nation’s own commitment to helping these nations address the root causes of poverty, violence, and hopelessness driving so many people north. But again, change can only happen as part of a team effort. Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, their neighbors in the region, the United States, and the international community must all commit to realizing the goal of moving these nations forward.

El Salvador — Friday, January 15th

On Friday, Rep. Torres joined me as I traveled to El Salvador to see some of the programs U.S. investments are helping to fund and meet with officials to hear more about their efforts to tackle the record violence plaguing the nation.

Early in the day, we met with the President of El Salvador, Salvador Sanchez Ceren to hear about his plans to decrease violence and create economic opportunity. President Ceren informed me about his nation’s programs to improve the security situation on the ground and I told him that El Salvador can do it, and the U.S. and others stand ready to help.

We also visited a repatriation facility that works to help those returning from Mexico get back on their feet. While touring the facility, I couldn’t help but think about the words Pope Francis spoke when he addressed a joint session of Congress last year, calling on all of us to treat migrants the way we would want to be treated on every step of their journey.

I was reminded of the people on the other end of our record immigration statistics — including tens of thousands of unaccompanied children — and the lack of hope that has led so many parents to do the unthinkable — to put their children in the hands of smugglers to undertake a dangerous journey north, sometimes traveling 1,500-miles to the United States.

Later in the day, we traveled to ¡Supérate! a USAID-sponsored education and development center that offers English language, computer, and leadership training for youth in El Salvador.

It was great to see this program helping students reach their potential. Being able to smile and laugh with them — while I practice my Spanish and they their English — gives me hope that our efforts to make these nations a better place to live and raise a family are worthwhile and making a difference.

To read more about my efforts to address the root causes driving Central American migration to our southern border, read my recent report, “Stronger Neighbors — Stronger Borders: Addressing the Root Causes of the Migration Surge from Central America,” where I outline the conditions the Northern Triangle nations face, and our role as their neighbor to help.